RAINBOW LEGALIAISON
APPENDIX B
WHY WE DON'T SIGN PERMITS
The Rainbow Family World Peace Gatherings have occurred
without permits since 1981. Our chief position has been that we
do not need anyone's permission to gather, and that we sign away
our right to peaceably assemble when we sign permits. We have
always sought full cooperation with everyone impacted by the
Gathering. We have always left sites in a condition at least as
good as we found them, usually better; we did have a hard time in
North Carolina because the Forest Service busted our cleanup
crew.
As always, no one person is qualified to speak for the Family
and there is a tradition that any contacts with the authorities
have at least two family members present, so that one may act as
a "fair witness". We are all "liaisons" for the council, and
anything we say or do for the Family is subject to the approval
of the council.
A common request from the authorities is that we post a
performance bond. This is something we have never done, since it
constitutes requiring insurance to go to church. The Family
holds that Rainbow is not a sue-able entity, or is even a legal
entity at all - judges aren't too hot on this idea. A good model
to cite might be the Mennonite community in Pennsylvania, which
conscientiously objects to having auto insurance, which is
mandatory in PA. They have a deal with the government whereby
they simply pledge, as a community, to make good on any
liabilities incurred. Rainbow has a spotless record on making
good on liabilities.
ROOTS: The Rainbow Family of Living Light (aka Rainbow Gathering
of the Tribes, etc.) didn't really begin at any specific time,
and has never really existed as a formal organization. In many
ways, it is a fundamental human expression, the tendency of
people to gather together in a natural place and express
themselves in ways that come naturally to them, to live and let
live, to do unto others as we would have them do unto us.
In the U.S. in the late 1960's and early 70's, a kind of
critical mass of consciousness developed. Beyond the media hype
of "fading movement", those who were serious in the hippie and
anti-war movements were learning what political life was really
about, and, most importantly, were learning basic economics and
to take care of their own. After some hard lessons at the many
mega-events of the time, many were becoming skilled at coping
with the care and feeding of tens of thousands of people at a
time, and organized themselves into tribes dedicated to that
purpose. A diverse and decentralized social fabric began to weave
itself from threads of hippie culture, back-to-the-landers,
american indian spiritual teachings, pacifist-anarchist
traditions, eastern mysticism, and the legacy of depression era
hobo street wisdom.
Although this fabric included visionaries, gurus, and people
with strong organizing skills, it has not produced a
leader/follower decision-making process or hierarchy. Instead,
all decision making power is held in a main council, open to all,
with all individuals holding equal power, and all decisions made
only by unanimous consensus. Although it is frequently a
difficult process, it has stood the test of time, and has served
the whole quite well. This process makes it essentially
impossible for authorities, power-trippers, or hostile elements
to intimidate or manipulate individuals to the detriment of the
group.
LEGAL: This process also presents challenges to the legal
system, especially when it comes to simply defining Rainbow in
legal terms. The authorities are constantly searching for our
"leaders", "representatives", or "organizers" and seem to
be conceptually unable (or unwilling) to cope with the reality
that we don't have any. The Gathering uses the term and concept
"liaison" (or "legaliaison") to refer to one who communicates
with authorities but has no power to act on behalf of the
Council. in the 1988 Texas case, Judge Justice stated that he
felt the government had a right to choose representatives from
within the family if we refused to appoint them, but this portion
of his opinion may not be binding.
The Gathering seems to consider itself a relatively pure
example of Peaceful Assembly, and therefore the only "permit"
required is the guarantee of the right provided in the First
Amendment. A number of times, in more cooperative years, the
USFS has accepted "operating agreements", negotiated by both
parties and revocable by no one, in lieu of permits. Perhaps
they could be convinced to accept this as a permit alternative on
a permanent basis - this would be ideal, and has some precedent.
The Gathering has also consistently refused to pay performance
bonds, citing the spiritual nature of the Gathering and that it
would be unconstitutional to "require insurance to go to church".
Judge Justice certified us as a "defendant class", but lawyers
have said that this doesn't necessarily mean we are a sue-able
entity (see enclosure "Why We Don't Sign Permits"). It's
interesting to think that Rainbow simply may not be truly
definable in legal terms.
Certainly the Gathering seems to feel that the Government has
no right to regulate it, but here's where they part company with
the courts. it seems that the courts have held that the USFS has
the right to regulate Gatherings, but has so far failed to write
regulations that are constitutional. Ideally, we would undermine
their "right" to regulate; otherwise, we must simply fight them
every time they try, on the theory that they will ever be able to
write a regulation constitutional enough to stand up. With the
conservative shift in the courts now, this is a shaky bet. If
there is some type of higher recourse, permanent injunction,
congressional intervention, etc., that we can achieve, perhaps we
can stay out of court for good.
FOOTNOTE #1: In recent years, the authorities have tried to
suppress the Gathering on the supposed grounds that the Gathering
is a sanitation hazard. Although our sanitation technology is
constantly evolving, the reality is that our Gatherings generally
exceed the U.S. Army Field Standards for large group camping, we
always seek to work harmoniously with local health departments,
and they havecertified us as sanitary.
FOOTNOTE #2: There have come to be many spontaneous local and
regional Gatherings calling themselves Rainbow; the 1986 Arizona
case was initiated at a local Gathering. Although there is often
autual support and overlap attendance, all Rainbow Gatherings
are entirely autonomous and independent from one another.
FS Regs Page | Public Views | Government Views | Rainbow in Court
1601 Pennsylvania Avenue